Applying the Theories of ethics
Decision-making in a medieval society happens to be marred by dilemmas. Generally, an individual ends up being caught up between the interests of the majority and those of the minority. The different ethical theories present possible approaches that can be used to make conclusions when a conflict occurs. The case of the little boy presents the application of various ethical theories such as utilitarianism, deontological and even virtue ethics. The decision on whether to report the boy to the mob considers the outcomes of the mob’s actions. Saving the boy from the angry mob is more beneficial because having the boy killed denies the boy a second chance that might be beneficial both to society and the boy.
The society believes that any decision should be made according to the opinions of the majority. Utilitarian ethics also supports the claim that the decision should always offer the highest good for the greatest number of people (Kahane, Everett, Farias & Savulescu, 2015). In the boy’s case, a utilitarian approach would involve reporting the boy to the boy and eliminate the risk of further theft cases. However, the decision would only solve a short-term problem. Besides, the boy has stolen a single apple that cannot be compared to the loss of life. Also, society has played a role in the behavior of the boy by letting him lack food despite being an orphan. Therefore, the decision to not present the boy to the mob considers both sides of the story and that the boy needs a second chance in changing his behavior. Moreover, a consideration of the deontological ethical theory will show that everyone in society should be treated with respect and dignity.
A decision on whether or not to present the boy to the mob is made according to the deontological theory. The boy has a right to be treated with respect and dignity before any action is taken. Since the crowd has already decided that the boy should either die or be punished by having his hand chopped off, they should not be allowed to get hold of the boy (Lazar, 2017). Instead, justification should be made that the respect and dignity of the boy are more important than the interests of the mob. Furthermore, everyone should identify their duties, and no actions should be taken to justify the failure to carry out one’s duties. The society seems to be using the execution of the boy to justify their inability to provide for the orphans in the society. Moreover, the decision may go against the virtue theory of ethics, and the overall outcome is humane.
The theory of virtue ethics requires that individuals embrace honesty in their decisions. However, honesty may sometimes have costly outcomes that should be considered before any decision is made (Bell, Dyck & Neubert, 2017). The honesty decision would be to report the boy to the mob, but the boy would either lose their life or their arms, yet they could have been helped to change their behavior. Therefore, the decision to hide the boy from the mob is beneficial in that society will later have a responsible member when the boy changes their behavior.
In sum, the boy should not be presented to the angry mob but instead should be offered a second chance to change his behavior. The theories of utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics apply differently depending on the decision made. If the boy is saved from the mob, they have an opportunity to change their behavior and become a responsible member of society.
References
Bell, G. G., Dyck, B., & Neubert, M. J. (2017). Ethical Leadership, Virtue Theory, And Generic Strategies. Radical Thoughts on Ethical Leadership, 113.
Kahane, G., Everett, J. A., Earp, B. D., Farias, M., & Savulescu, J. (2015). ‘Utilitarian’judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition, 134, 193-209.
Lazar, S. (2017). Deontological decision theory and agent-centered options. Ethics, 127(3), 579- 609.